Geospatial market analytics

ABSTRACT

A method and processing system for assessing of the health of a network of retail locations in a defined geographic area, by a process including the development of a greenfield benchmark score for a network of ideally sited locations, followed by the development of a brownfield score of current locations, for comparison to the greenfield score. The invention is further applicable to decisions to open a new location, relocate an existing location or close an existing location. In these cases, the effect of opening a new location, or relocating or closing an underperforming location is evaluated by recalculating the brownfield score after the addition of each of several potential new locations, and/or after relocating or closing each of several poorly performing locations.

RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a non-provisional application of and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/595,913 filed Dec. 7, 2017, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to methods and systems for geospatial market analytics, and specifically the use of geospatial analytics for the purpose of siting retail locations and other geographic decisions.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Geospatial analysis has been known in the art. Methods have been proposed for associating relevant marketing data to a geographical map for the purposes of evaluating market strength in a particular area. This type of analysis is typically performed as part of the siting of a retail location.

One proposal for a detailed geospatial analysis is described in US Patent Publication 2015/0073954, which explains a manner in which data from a financial institution is geographically mapped to build a geospatial database. The data used may be credit card or debit card transaction data associated with particular residential addresses. The published method performs several heuristic processes to clean the data and associate the data to particular geographic areas, as well as anonymizing the data to safeguard the privacy of individual card and account holders. The data is used by business clients for the purposes of evaluating decisions as to whether to make promotions, investments and other transactions in particular geographic areas.

A challenge with these known systems is that the geographic granularity is not sufficient to enable decision making at the accuracy that can be needed for some applications. This is a consequence of the fact that the raw data which can feed into a geospatial database is often provided at a low level of granularity. As one instance some demographic data is provided on a ZIP code basis; in some urban areas a ZIP code region can be rather small, but in rural areas one ZIP code can span hundreds of square miles, thus limiting the granularity of data in such areas.

It is an object of the present invention to improve the granularity of a geospatial database to then allow much more particularized decision making than has previously been the case, for example to provide decision making on geographic areas of a well under one square mile. This permits “streetcorner” decision making and allows the relative grading of two locations which in prior systems would have been in a common region and indistinguishable from one another.

It is a further object of the invention to enhance the use of a geospatial database, particularly one with the noted enhanced detail, to permit additional improvements in the management and decision making of a retail or other consumer facing business.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generates a geospatial database at a high level of granularity via several algorithms for allocating geospatial data to smaller geographic areas than those provided by the raw data.

The present invention further provides a method for assessment of the health of a network of retail locations in a defined geographic area, by a process including the development of a greenfield benchmark score for a network of ideally sited locations, followed by the development of a brownfield score of current locations, for comparison to the greenfield score. In some embodiments the comparison is expressed as a percentage ratio of the brownfield score to the greenfield score. In detailed embodiments the greenfield score is formed by siting a first retail location at the highest scoring location in an area, degrading the scores of surrounding areas to reflect the presence of the first retail location, then repeating these steps until a designated number of retail sites are chosen. A brownfield score is formed by identifying the highest scoring existing location and including it as the first location in the brownfield score, then degrading the scores of surrounding areas to reflect the presence of the first location, and the identifying the next highest scoring location and including it as the second location in the brownfield score, and repeating these steps until all of the existing locations are included in the brownfield score. A comparison of the thus-developed greenfield and brownfield scores provides a robust assessment of a network's health.

In another aspect the invention is applicable to decisions to open a new location, relocate an existing location or close an existing location. In these cases, the effect of opening a new location, or relocating or closing an underperforming location is evaluated by recalculating the brownfield score after the addition of each of several potential new locations, and/or after relocating or closing each of several poorly performing locations. In specific embodiments of this aspect, customer activity data is used to identify locations which are used by common customers and evaluate the network effect of closing one of those locations upon the customers who use both locations. In further embodiments, customer activity data is used to identify locations that are used by numerous common customers with multiple other locations, which are known as “hub” locations, and to respond by expanding access to services at a “hub” location such as by changing hours of business or locating specialized talent or resources at that location. In still further embodiments customer activity data is used to identify healthy locations which do not have common customers with other locations, as targets for potential divestiture rather than closure.

In additional aspects the invention is applicable to evaluating potential retail partners by assessing the retail locations of potential partners according to a brownfield scoring analysis that includes existing retail locations, to determine which of several potential partners provides the greatest value of new retail locations.

In still further aspects the invention is applicable to evaluating potential merger or acquisition targets, by assessing the retail locations of potentially merged entities according to a brownfield scoring analysis that includes existing locations of both potentially merged entities.

The above and other objects and advantages of the present invention shall be made apparent from the accompanying drawings and the description thereof.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer system for performing a geographic analysis consistent with the invention;

FIG. 2A is a flowchart illustrating the overall process implemented by the computer system of FIG. 1 to tessellate a geographic area into appropriate hexes for the purpose of geospatial market analysis in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 2B is a flow chart for initializing a hex grid by a tessellation process, then limiting the hexes through intersection with street network and state boundary data;

FIG. 2C is a flowchart illustrating the use of a drive time algorithm for generating an origin-destination table of drive times applicable to hexes which intersect the street network;

FIG. 2D is a flowchart illustrating the apportionment of data from geographic input files of spatially relative data to tessellated geographic areas through the use of drive time, to build flattened data for future modeling and evaluation;

FIG. 2E is a flowchart illustrating the handling of hexes that do not intersect roads to identify nearby hexes applicable thereto;

FIG. 2F is a flowchart generally illustrating a site selection process that proceeds from the generated data using a site selection rule set;

FIG. 2G is a flowchart illustrating a process for identifying micro networks from hex data, transaction data, and retail locations, for use in further processing and geospatial analysis;

FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D illustrate tessellation, formation of hexes identifiable by hex centroids, identification of hexes that intersect roads, and integration and apportionment of geographical data;

FIGS. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E illustrate the creation of Thiessen/Voroni polygons around existing retail sites and the intersection of those polygons using micronetworks; and

FIG. 5 illustrates a greenfield and brownfield benchmarking process using the geographic data developed in accordance with principles of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Turning now to the Drawings, wherein like numbers denote like parts throughout the several views, FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary hardware and software environment for a processing apparatus 2 consistent with the invention. For the purposes of the invention, processing apparatus 2 (or “processor”) may represent practically any type of computer, computer system or other programmable electronic device, including a client computer, a server computer, a personal computer, a portable computer, a handheld computer, an embedded controller, etc. Moreover, processor 2 may be implemented using one or more networked computers, e.g., in a cluster or other distributed computing system. Processor 2 may be capable of functioning as a client and/or server in a client-server environment. Moreover, processor 2 may be capable of functioning as a client and/or server in a peer-to-peer environment. Multiple processors 2 may be interfaced in a client-server environment and/or peer-to peer environment. Processor 2 will hereinafter also be referred to as a “computer,” although it should be appreciated that the term “processor” may also include other suitable programmable electronic devices consistent with the invention.

Computer 2 typically includes a central processing unit (CPU) 4 including one or more microprocessors coupled to a memory 6, which may represent the random access memory (RAM) devices comprising the main storage of computer 2, as well as any supplemental levels of memory, e.g., cache memories, non-volatile or backup memories (e.g., programmable or flash memories, solid state or disk memory), read-only memories, etc. In addition, memory 6 may be considered to include memory storage physically located elsewhere in computer 2, e.g., any cache memory in a processor in CPU 4, as well as any storage capacity used as a virtual memory, e.g., as stored on a mass storage device 14 or on another computer coupled to computer 2.

Computer 2 also typically receives a number of inputs and outputs for communicating information externally. For interface with a user or operator, computer 2 typically includes a user interface 20 and/or an input/output interface 22 incorporating one or more user input/output devices 24 (e.g., a keyboard 28, a mouse 30, a printer 32, a trackball, a joystick, a touchpad, and/or a microphone, among others) and a display 26 (e.g., a CRT monitor, an LCD display panel, and/or a speaker, among others). Otherwise, user input may be received via another computer or terminal, e.g., via a client or single-user computer 40 coupled to computer 2 over a network 36. This latter implementation may be desirable where computer 2 is implemented as a server or other form of multi-user computer. However, it should be appreciated that computer 2 may also be implemented as a standalone workstation, desktop, or other single-user computer in some embodiments.

For non-volatile storage, computer 2 typically includes one or more mass storage devices 14, e.g., a floppy or other removable disk drive, a hard disk drive, a direct access storage device (DASD), an optical drive (e.g., a CD drive, a DVD drive, etc.), and/or a tape drive, among others. Furthermore, computer 2 may also include an interface 34 with one or more networks 36 (e.g., a LAN, a WAN, a wireless network, and/or the Internet, among others) to permit the communication of information with other computers and electronic devices. It should be appreciated that computer 2 typically includes suitable analog and/or digital interfaces between CPU 4 and each of components 6, 14, 34, and 20 as is well known in the art (e.g., via bus 18).

Computer 2 operates under the control of an operating system 12, and executes or otherwise relies upon various computer software applications, components, programs, objects, modules, data structures, etc. Additionally, various applications, components, programs, object, modules, etc. may also execute on one or more processors in another computer coupled to computer 2 via a network, e.g., in a distributed or client-server computing environment, whereby the processing required to implement the functions of a computer program may be allocated to multiple computers over a network.

In particular, a Geospatial Analysis System 8 may be resident in memory 6 and used to access a Geographical Database 16 resident in mass storage 14. System 8 may be used to evaluate a geographical area and various geographical information to create a tessellation and hex pattern for the geographical area that reflects some or all of the available geographic information. Additionally, System 8 may be used by a user to evaluate geographic data in Database 16 as well as retrieve data from Database 16. Database 16 may also be accessible by the operating system 12.

The Geospatial Analysis System 8 may also have a Benchmarking application 10 associated with it, providing the user the ability to create benchmarking analysis of geographic area and retail locations placed therein, as described below.

In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention, whether implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions, or even a subset thereof, will be referred to herein as “computer program code,” or simply “program code.” Program code typically comprises one or more instructions that are resident at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause that computer to perform the steps necessary to execute steps or elements embodying the various aspects of the invention.

Moreover, while the invention has and hereinafter will be described in the context of fully functioning computers and computer systems, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the various embodiments of the invention are capable of being distributed as a program product in a variety of forms, and that the invention applies equally regardless of the particular type of computer readable media used to actually carry out the distribution. Examples of computer readable media include but are not limited to tangible, recordable type media such as volatile and non-volatile memory devices, floppy and other removable disks, hard disk drives, magnetic tape, optical disks (e.g., CD-ROMs, DVDs, etc.), among others, and transmission type media such as digital and analog communication links.

In addition, various program code described hereinafter may be identified based upon the application within which it is implemented in a specific embodiment of the invention. However, it should be appreciated that any particular program nomenclature that follows is used merely for convenience, and thus the invention should not be limited to use solely in any specific application identified and/or implied by such nomenclature. Furthermore, given the typically endless number of manners in which computer programs may be organized into routines, procedures, methods, modules, objects, and the like, as well as the various manners in which program functionality may be allocated among various software layers that are resident within a typical computer (e.g., operating systems, libraries, API's, applications, applets, etc.), it should be appreciated that the invention is not limited to the specific organization and allocation of program functionality described herein.

Those skilled in the art will recognize that the exemplary environment illustrated in FIG. 1 is not intended to limit the present invention. Indeed, those skilled in the art will recognize that other alternative hardware and/or software environments may be used without departing from the scope of the invention.

Referring now to FIG. 2A, a geospatial market analysis method performed by a processor such as discussed above, involves a series of geographic processing steps, some of which initialize the system for later analysis and are infrequently repeated, and some of which are repeated each time the system is used for a new analysis.

In a first step 201, the processor performs a tessellation of the entire geographic area of interest, to produce an end-to-end hex grid 208. The resulting grid of hexagonal areas or “hexes”, illustrated in FIG. 3A, serves as a baseline for subsequent geographic functions. The grid of hexes is typically created only one time and used thereafter, and each is identified by a centroid point as shown in FIG. 3B.

Next, the hexes created by the preceding step are analyzed in two ways to limit the number of hexes analyzed. First, in step 202, the processor overlays the street network for the area in interest on the hexes and selects those hexes which lie on (aka accessible via) the street network. The overlay of the street network is seen graphically in FIG. 3C, and hexes on the street network are shaded in FIG. 3C for illustration. As seen in FIG. 2E, this process involves the use of a street network database 260 and hex grid 261 for the region of interest, for example a grid of the continental United States. Those hexes are within 0.16 miles of hexes that intersect roads are included 262 in a group of “near hexes” 263, which are read and assigned 264 to their next closest hex for the sale of identifying those hexes deemed accessible in the output table 265.

In addition to the above processes, because state or other political boundaries tend to affect the street network, in step 209 those hexes within 20 miles of state boundaries are selected for further processing. The resulting hexes are then available for combination 204 with geographical data 211.

After the foregoing, a drive time algorithm 203 is applied to the selected hexes, to produce an origin-designation table 210 providing drive times from one hex to another, useful for subsequent processing. As seen in FIG. 2C, the drive time process is performed for those hexagons 240 that intersect the street network, which is known from available databases 242. The hex data and street network data are read 241, 243, and then an algorithm, of which there are several commercially available alternatives, is used to compute drive times between hexes using one of several rule sets 245 relating to assumed traffic conditions, driving times, and the like. The algorithm may operate from a rule set to compute drive times, including factors such as whether the adjacent streets are one way roads, public or private, the functional class of the roadway and the speed limit of the roadway. Other data such as historical traffic may also feed into drive time calculation rules. The resulting origin-destination table is the needed output for the following geographical analysis steps and is re-generated to accommodate for changes in the street network, or traffic patterns, as necessary. Typically, a regeneration will be required at least every three to five years to accommodate for street network changes.

As seen in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the result of the tessellation 230 is delivered to three processes: first, a process 231 which identifies the hexes having intersection with the street network, a process 232 which selects hexes within 20 miles of state boundaries, and a process 233 which combines the hexes with geographical data. The intersection with geographical data involves apportionment of several types, as discussed herein.

As seen in FIG. 2D, input files 250 containing geographic data, are read 251, and combined with the origin-destination matrix 252 produced in the preceding step, which is read 253 and supplied to an apportionment process 254 which utilizes drive times. In this manner, ZIP code data can be apportioned to all of the hexes bordering that ZIP in proportion to the relative drive time of each hex to the ZIP code. This is shown diagrammatically in FIG. 3D where data for a region (shown by a white outline) which applies to a group of locations is allocated to individual hexes, and at the same time data relating to points (squares, circles) lying within a single hex are allocated to that hex. Data on income, employment, credit ratings or any other factor which is indexed by household, or averages for a city, state, ZIP code, neighborhood or the like can be similarly apportioned. Each contributes to a scoring for a hex based upon the desirability of the apportioned data to the retail purpose. After the data is accumulated, the data is flattened 255 to a single score which is tabulated 256 and useable for analysis.

The market data can include numerous sources, such as financial activity data (credit or debit card transactions, loan activity, auto or home title transfers, and the like) or financial asset data (investment or banking account data). The data from larger regions is mapped into the smaller regions by attributing to each smaller region any data associated with locations within a given drive time of that region, using available road mapping databases and drive time algorithms, or by allocating more of the data to a region.

Returning to FIG. 2A, after geographic data is intersected 251 and apportioned 206, which results in apportioned data tables 212 via the described process 213, models based upon infrastructures attributes are developed 207, and used in connection with hexes 215 which do not intersect roads, to create scoring data which is combinable with the apportioned data tables 217. The infrastructure models approximate the accessibility of locations which are near to existing infrastructure even if not yet accessible by an intersection part of the road network.

The resulting two sets of data, one for hexes intersecting roads and one for hexes near to roads, are imported 216 and combined with models for scoring locations 214, using real time algorithms 218 to create an overall scoring for every location in a geographic region. As seen in FIG. 2F, this process uses the origin-destination matrix 270 formed earlier and the model scores 271, which are read 272, and used with a site selection rule set 274 to select 273 an optimal site or combination of sites, as discussed below referencing FIG. 5. This produces a set of selected sites 275 which may be mapped 276. As seen in FIG. 2A, the scores are processed through a symbology metric 219, to create a mapping output 219 which may take the form of a physical printout 221 or a digital map 222 for display.

This part of the process of FIG. 2A operates in real time, allowing adjustment of the model scores 214 and re-evaluation of the hex databases in order to refine the scoring of locations based upon the relative importance of the various scoring factors involved in the scoring.

Referring now to FIG. 2G, a process for identifying micro networks is described. In this process, retail locations 280 are combined with hex data 281 developed in accordance with the foregoing steps and matched with transaction data 282 from a common customer database, such as the registers of transactions at a consumer banking entity. These files are read collectively 283 and two parallel analyses are performed.

First, the geographic region populated by the existing retail locations (dots in FIG. 4A) is subdivided by generating 285 Thiessen polygons around each location (polygons in the right on FIG. 4A). This known process involves taking the intersection of polygons created by perpendicular bisectors of line segments connecting each location to its neighbors. The resulting polygons seen in FIG. 4A each represent one retail locations location geographic share of the entire region of interest.

Second, the transaction data is converted 284 to a spatial network diagram, such as those shown in FIGS. 4B and 4C. As seen in FIG. 4B, a geographic area is captured, based on a path (left side of FIG. 4B) between each pair of retail locations that are associated or correlated to each other in the transaction data via common customer activity. The geographic area is defined as the path surrounded with a buffer region of, e.g., 2 meters, to create a geographic representation of each connection (right side of FIG. 4B). Next, as seen in FIG. 4C, the overlapping geographic representations (left side of FIG. 4B) are merged to create a geographic feature (right side of FIG. 4C) representing the geographic span of an economically connected set of retail locations.

After the preceding steps, the processor intersects the network diagram from FIG. 4C with the Thiessen polygons of FIG. 4A, to overlap each as seen in the right side of FIG. 4D, and next, as seen in the right side of FIG. 4E, the processor dissolves the intersecting polygons to produce combined polygons representing micronetworks of retail locations which are physically adjacent and economically coupled, which are known herein as micronetworks.

The appendix attached to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/595,913, filed Dec. 7, 2017, describes the use of commercial software from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. of 380 New York Street, Redlands, Calif. 92373-8100, United States, for implementing the herein-described algorithm used for populating a geospatial database with information at a high level of granularity for the purposes of performing analyses according to the present invention. Additional algorithms for developing a geospatial database are presented in the above-referenced US Patent Publication 2015/0073954.

Referring now to FIG. 5, after development of a geospatial database according to the noted process, a benchmarking process in accordance with the present invention proceeds according to the following sequence of steps:

An initial, greenfield algorithm 500 is used for developing a benchmark score for a targeted region having a number of pre-existing retail sites. This is performed using a so-called “greedy” location selection method 502 and a multi-site location method 512, which produce comparable strategies for later evaluation.

In the greedy location selection method 502, the processor searches 504 for locations within the target region with sufficiently high scores to be profitable, and eligible for a retail site (appropriate zoning). Next, in step 506 the highest scoring location of those meeting the criteria of step 504 is selected. Thereafter, in step 508 the processor degrades the scoring of sites surrounding the chosen location based on their adjacency (e.g., driving time) to the site chosen in step 506. Thereafter, steps 506 and 508 are repeated until the targeted number of sites have been identified in the targeted region.

In the greenfield algorithm for developing a benchmark score for a targeted region, multi-site location selection version 512, the processor searches 514 for locations within the target region with sufficiently high scores to be profitable, and eligible for a retail site (appropriate zoning). Next, in step 516 the processor evaluates groups of two or more locations meeting the criteria of step 514 to identify a group of locations having the highest combined score when the scores of each location are degraded based upon adjacency (e.g., driving time) to the other locations in the group. A group of locations is selected if their combined score is higher than the combined scores of an equal number of locations placed according to the greedy version 502 of the algorithm. After selection of groups through the preceding steps, the processor degrades the scoring of sites surrounding the chosen locations based on their adjacency (e.g., driving time) to the sites chosen in step 516. Thereafter, steps 516 and 518 are repeated until the targeted number of sites have been identified in the targeted region.

After the foregoing process of greenfield scoring of possible sites in a given target region, in step 524 a brownfield scoring is performed for the targeted region and the pre-existing retail sites, which involves identifying the highest scoring pre-existing retail site, degrading the scoring of pre-existing sites surrounding the selected pre-existing site based on their adjacency (e.g. driving time) to the chosen site chosen in step, and then repeating these steps until all pre-existing retail sites have been identified and scored.

To determine the overall health of an existing retail site network, the greenfield and brownfield scores are compared. Specifically, in step 526 the processor computes the ratio of the brownfield score from step 524 to the greenfield score compiled by the preceding steps to create a percentage measure of the existing network health.

After thus computing a network score, then multiple further analytical steps may be performed.

For example, a computation of remaining capacity in a targeted region may proceed by applying the greenfield algorithms of 502 or 512 to the region after degrading all location scores based on adjacency (e.g. driving time) to the pre-existing retail sites. Additional locations may then be selected according to the greenfield algorithm of 502 or 512 until any remaining available locations have insufficient scores for profitability. This can provide a measure of whether a targeted region has been saturated with retail locations, and, if not, where additional retail locations can be ideally located.

Further, an evaluation of locations may identify the potential gains available from closing or relocating a retail location, by performing brownfield evaluations (step 524) on existing locations without the location to be closed or relocated, and comparing the results to the brownfield evaluation with that location present. Identification of a site for a new location can proceed by performing a greenfield analysis to identify the optimal location.

In those industries where the activities of consumers can be well characterized, such as in banking or retail lines with robust loyalty programs, the choices of locations to be closed or relocated can be even more informed, by identifying those locations which are linked to each other by common customers. Locations may be related to just one other location, or locations may be linked to a group of other locations via a ring or hub-spoke relationship, and locations may be isolated in the sense of not having many common customers with other locations. Applying data to identify these scenarios permits a more refined decision process in closing or relocating retail locations. For example, one location of a closely linked pair of locations may be closed with less loss of customers than would be otherwise predicted, and the most tightly connected spoke location of a group of locations in a hub-and-spoke relationship can likely be closed with less loss of customers than would be otherwise predicted. Locations which are isolated present a concern for loss of customers likely to exceed what would be otherwise predicted, and thus can be considered candidates to be retained, or sold to another retail entity, rather than closed, to avoid loss of value.

While the present invention has been illustrated by a description of various embodiments and while these embodiments have been described in considerable detail, it is not the intention of the applicants to restrict or in any way limit the scope of the appended claims to such detail. Additional advantages and modifications will readily appear to those skilled in the art. The invention in its broader aspects is therefore not limited to the specific details, representative apparatus and method, and illustrative example shown and described. Accordingly, departures may be made from such details without departing from the spirit or scope of applicant's general inventive concept. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for assessment of the health of a network of retail locations in a defined geographic area, by a process comprising: a. developing a greenfield benchmark score for a network of ideally sited locations, b. developing a brownfield score of current locations, c. generating a mathematical comparison of the brownfield score to the greenfield score.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the comparison is expressed as a percentage ratio of the brownfield score to the greenfield score.
 3. The method of claim 1 wherein the greenfield score is formed by a process including: d. siting a first retail location at the highest scoring location in an area, e. degrading scores of areas surrounding the first retail location to reflect the presence of the first retail location, and f. repeating steps (d) and (e) for a second and further location until a designated number of locations are chosen.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein a brownfield score is formed by a process including: d. identifying a highest scoring existing location and including its score as a first location, e. degrading scores of areas surrounding the first location to reflect the presence of the first location, f. identifying a next highest scoring existing location and including its score as a second location, and g. repeating steps (e) and (f) until all existing locations are included in the brownfield score.
 5. The method of claim 1 applied to evaluation of a prospective new location, comprising evaluating an effect of opening a new location by recalculating a brownfield score after addition of that location, and repeating this step for each of several potential new locations.
 6. The method of claim 1 applied to evaluation of the relocation of an existing location, comprising evaluating an effect of relocating a location by recalculating a brownfield score after relocation of that location, and repeating this step for each of several potential relocations.
 7. The method of claim 1 applied to evaluation of closure of one or more existing locations, comprising recalculating a brownfield score after closure of an existing location, and repeating this step for each of several potentially closed locations.
 8. The method of claim 1 further applied to evaluating a plurality of retail locations to identify the network effect of closing one retail location, comprising: d. gathering customer activity data at leach of the retail locations to identify groups of two or more locations which are used by common customers, e. evaluating the network effect of closing one location of a group upon the customers who use both locations based upon the number of common customers.
 9. The method of claim 8 wherein the customer activity data indicates the existence of a hub location that is used by numerous common customers with multiple other locations, and in response expanding access to services at the hub location.
 10. The method of claim 9 wherein expanding access to services at a hub location comprises one or more of changing hours of business or locating specialized talent or resources at the hub location.
 11. The method of claim 8 wherein the customer activity data indicates a group of two or more locations which have common customers, and in response closing or reducing access to services at one location of the group.
 12. The method of claim 1 applied to locations of potential retail partners, comprising assessing retail locations of one or more potential partners according to a brownfield scoring analysis of the existing retail locations and partner retail locations
 13. The method of claim 12 applied to analysis of plural potential retail partners, further comprising comparing brownfield scores generated for each potential partner.
 14. The method of claim 1 applied to evaluating locations of potential merger or acquisition entity, comprising assessing retail locations of a potentially merged or acquired entity according to a brownfield scoring analysis of existing retail locations and merged or acquired retail locations. 